froghawk on 7/7/2020 at 20:03
Where I went to college, all the restrooms were gender neutral, including the multi-stalls with showers. There was never a single issue.
SD on 7/7/2020 at 20:08
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Dude, do you even know who SD is?
You've completely misinterpreted everything he's said and made up so many strawmen Nic Cage is crapping himself.
It's because he doesn't want to admit that making it easier for men to encroach into women-only spaces will increase the risk to women. Hence the copious appeals to emotion. Appeals to emotion are all that side have, after all.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
The whole "trans laws will make restroom rapes easier to commit" argument has always been so lame to me.
Which is why I specifically didn't employ it. It's a straw man. I referred only to changing rooms (locker rooms) and refuges.
I've yet to see a persuasive argument for why women and girls at, for instance, a public swimming pool should be made to undress in front of naked people with dicks. There's not a shred of concern on the trans extremist side for women who would feel uncomfortable about that. How can we allow our womenfolk to be exposed, literally, to that and be comfortable with it? It's absolutely barking mad.
SubJeff on 7/7/2020 at 20:13
No no SD you must mean bathroom rapes.
Don't you understand?
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND YOU STRAIGHT WHITE TERF
Kolya on 7/7/2020 at 20:15
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
So, tl;dr #1: "cancel culture" is when people decide that they do not want to support some person or group of people, and often also share their reasoning with others who might be interested.
Of course it's fine to take your business elsewhere, but if you make public accusations that you cannot back up in a court which damage someone's business or reputation, that is a crime called slander. And you act like you never heard of that because it befits your perspective.
A lot of people are questioning the good faith of others here. I don't think that's it at all. I think we all mean well. But that isn't enough. There's a lack of thinking things through here to their logical conclusion.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
The second one is a little more complicated, because it's technically hearsay. If one person accuses another of a sex crime, and the second denies it, then people need to make up their own minds as to which party to believe.
Why would they need to do that? Is acting like a decent person and admitting that you don't know all the facts not an option? Why can you not wait for a court to decide and then accept that decision? As a society, this is exactly why we have courts.
What pressure is there for random people to make up their own mind about things they know nothing about and that won't change their life a single bit? It seems to me the only need here, is to confirm one's own bias, one way or another.
Mr.Duck on 7/7/2020 at 20:17
*Scratches beard*
Boy...the level of entrenchment in this thread would give a WW I soldier the biggest hard-on or send them shaking with PTSD-flashbacks.
I'm with gloom: this thread sucks.
heywood on 7/7/2020 at 20:23
SD,
I don't see dethy misrepresenting you. You quite literally said that penises are the source of danger.
Your concern about trans women assaulting cis women in bathrooms or changing rooms is the strawman. I'm not saying it can't happen, but how many cases have you ever heard of? Me - none. It's a made up hypothetical. On the other hand, there are LOTS of cases of trans women being assaulted by men. Now that is an actual problem, and a big contributor to it is homophobic men who don't understand gender assuming that trans women are just crossdressing sissies or straight perverts who want to stalk women in bathroom stalls.
An even more absurd strawman is saying that "hetero men are called transphobic because they don't want to date a woman with a cock."
Now you're saying the idea of a woman seeing a dick is barking mad. Are you serious? That's Islamic State thinking.
Kolya on 7/7/2020 at 20:25
Quote Posted by MrDuck
*Scratches beard*Boy...the level of entrenchment in this thread would give a WW I soldier the biggest hard-on or send them shaking with PTSD-flashbacks.
I'm with 'toll: this thread sucks.
I agree with the assessment, but I'm not sure that meta commentary is helpful to raise the quality level.
Quote Posted by heywood
SD,
Your concern about trans women assaulting cis women in bathrooms or changing rooms is the strawman. I'm not saying it
can't happen, but how many cases have you ever heard of? Me - none. It's a made up hypothetical. On the other hand, there are LOTS of cases of trans women being assaulted by men. Now that is an actual problem, and a big contributor to it is homophobic men who don't understand gender assuming that trans women are just crossdressing sissies or straight perverts who want to stalk women in bathroom stalls.
I don't think there'd be a problem with actual trans women in bathroom stalls for women. As you said, they are more likely to be victims.
However if dick possession isn't a criteria anymore, how do you stop anyone from falsely claiming another gender for nefarious purposes. I think that is the (exaggerated) fear.
heywood on 7/7/2020 at 21:00
You shouldn't restrict individual liberty for a hypothetical problem that doesn't really exist in real life.
Besides, SD already revealed the root of his concern. What this really boils down to is keeping women from potentially seeing dicks.
Aja on 7/7/2020 at 21:13
Quote Posted by SD
On your first point, it's not about invalidating how trans people feel. It's not really even about genuine trans people. It's about the practical danger penises pose to people without penises. It's unfortunate that we have to balance the fee-fees of trans people against the increased risk of sexual violence against women, but I make no apology for coming down on the side of the latter.
You may not intend it to be about that, but that is most certainly the result. You can't say you support trans rights while denying trans people the essence of their identity. Your position necessitates prejudice against trans people, and your justification for it, as dethtoll pointed out, doesn't even make sense because it relies on gender essentialism, which is demonstrably false. There's too much variety, too much of a spectrum of human sexuality to argue bluntly that if you have a penis, you're a man, end of story. What about intersex people? Should we have a genital-inspection committee to decide where they are and aren't allowed? And if you're going to reduce people's sexuality to whether or not they have a penis, then you'd really better not allow gay couples to adopt a child because two penises could potentially do twice as much molesting as one.
Quote:
I think it's easier if people pretend their opponents are all grossed out bigots, because that saves them having to rationally justify allowing potential rapists into women's changing rooms and refuges.
Like everyone else has said, anyone deranged enough to want to rape a woman doesn't need the cover of being trans to do so. What's actually easy is for someone who is uncomfortable with or doesn't understand what it means to be trans to say that trans people can't be permitted to live the way that makes them feel whole because they're a potential threat to society. And how many times have we heard that argument? Black men are a threat to white women. Gay men are a threat to children. It's a fear of the other, plain and simple. And JK Rowling's argument boiled down to her finding it annoying that people want her to be considerate of their feelings. Fine, she can have that opinion, but it makes her an asshole, and if she's going to use her enormous platform and influence over millions of readers to broadcast those views, then she absolutely deserves to be called out on it.
Jeshibu on 7/7/2020 at 21:13
Quote Posted by Kolya
However if dick possession isn't a criteria anymore, how do you stop anyone from falsely claiming another gender for nefarious purposes. I think that is the (exaggerated) fear.
What nefarious purposes would those be?
